In Washington, the legal battle around the Trump administration’s decision to use an antiquated wartime law for deporting Venezuelan immigrants has taken center stage as Chief Judge James Boasberg delves into whether his directives were ignored. This scrutiny comes amid reports that the government possibly defiantly deported immigrants despite a judicial order to halt such actions.
The pressing inquiry arose when at least two planes carrying immigrants were reportedly airborne last weekend despite Boasberg’s order to reverse such flights. The judge expressed determination to uncover the truth about whether his order was breached, who might have given such commands, and what potential repercussions will follow.
Earlier, the Justice Department informed the court of ongoing top-level discussions within the Trump administration. These discussions revolve around potentially invoking a “state secrets privilege” as a response to Boasberg’s quest for transparency regarding the specifics of the deportation flights.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche noted in a filing that discussions at the Cabinet level are ongoing, centering on whether to disclose further details as demanded by the judge or to cite the risk of exposing state secrets. The Trump administration has largely pushed back against these demands, labeling them as an undue judicial probe. Yet, Boasberg criticized their lackluster response, with hints that administration officials could face contempt charges if they continue withholding information.
Under the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, the Trump administration has deported hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador, a process that was in motion even as Boasberg intervened orally to halt the deportations. Controversy arose from the Justice Department’s stance that only written orders, not oral ones, were binding, especially once flights had departed U.S. soil.
This situation has also sparked political tensions, with calls among some Republican factions to impeach Boasberg, citing his Democratic nomination by then-President Obama. However, Chief Justice John Roberts countered such sentiments, stressing that impeachment is not an appropriate response to dissatisfactions over judicial decisions.
During Friday’s proceedings, Boasberg articulated significant concerns regarding the implications of the Alien Enemies Act when applied to deport Venezuelan immigrants. This law allows the removal of noncitizens without the chance for judicial review, a tactic the Trump administration justified by branding the Tren de Aragua gang as an invading force.
Boasberg questioned the necessity and urgency behind the sudden deportations and whether individuals had been rushed out to preempt legal intervention. He further pressed for clarity on how these immigrants could possibly contest their deportations, comparing their rights to those previously awarded by the U.S. Supreme Court to detainees at Guantanamo Bay post-9/11.
In defense, Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign emphasized that the Department of Homeland Security adhered to legal procedures and highlighted avenues for individual challenges in Texas. Meanwhile, American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt argued that historical precedents during World War II provided mechanisms for individuals to contest removals, contrasting past practices with the summary deportations currently being contested.